in the Interest of S.M.A., a Child
555 S.W.3d 754
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Child (Samantha) born in Atlanta, GA in 2011; parents lived in Georgia, moved intermittently between Georgia and Cass County, Texas, beginning in 2011.
- Father brought Samantha to live in Cass County with him and paternal grandmother in August 2014; child was in Georgia Feb 20–May 11, 2015, and father filed a SAPCR in Cass County on July 1, 2015.
- Mother (Georgia resident) filed a competing SAPCR in Georgia and challenged Texas court's subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Georgia was the child’s home state.
- Trial court denied Mother’s plea to the jurisdiction, finding neither Texas nor Georgia was the child’s home state but that Texas had significant-connection jurisdiction and substantial evidence.
- On appeal, the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals reviewed UCCJEA home-state and significant-connection standards and affirmed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia was the child’s home state at filing | Mother: Samantha’s presence in Texas was temporary; Georgia remained home state | Father: Child had lived in Texas with him and relatives for periods including Aug 2014–July 2015 (except Feb–May 2015) | Neither Texas nor Georgia was the child’s home state at filing (no six consecutive months immediately before filing) |
| Whether either state was home state within six months before filing | Mother: Georgia was home within six months | Father: Texas had been home within six months before filing | Court: Neither state constituted child’s home state within the relevant six-month window |
| Whether Texas could exercise significant-connection jurisdiction under UCCJEA §152.201(a)(2) | Mother: Implicitly argued Texas lacked jurisdiction because home state was Georgia | Father: Texas had significant connections and substantial evidence (family, belongings, relationships) | Held: Texas had significant-connection jurisdiction and substantial evidence available; jurisdiction proper |
| Whether parties’ intent governs home-state inquiry | Mother: Temporary intent matters to residence/home-state analysis | Father/State law: Home state determined by physical presence, not subjective intent | Held: Intention irrelevant; statutory “lived” (physical presence) controls (per Powell) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Marsalis, 338 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (discusses UCCJEA initial-jurisdiction analysis)
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2005) ("lived" means physical presence; intent irrelevant for home-state determination)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
- In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (analysis of significant-connection jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- In re S.J.A., 272 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (significant-connection and substantial-evidence considerations)